Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Methods for estimation of OHL conductor temperature based on ANN and

regression analysis
Tomislav Sterc a, *, Bozidar Filipovic-Grcic b, Bojan Franc b, Kresimir Mesic a
a
Croatian Transmission System Operator Plc., Kupska 4, Zagreb, Croatia
b
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, Unska 3, Zagreb, Croatia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Due to the trend of increased production, consumption and interstate exchange of electricity, transmission
DTR system operators are faced with the problem of allowable thermal rating of overhead lines (OHLs) in the
OTLM transmission power network. Transmission system operators often use static thermal rating for maximum
CIGRE TB 601
allowable thermal rating of OHL conductor. Such static thermal limits are usually defined for operation in
IEEE 738-2012
Regression analysis
extreme weather conditions which are rarely achieved in real-world operation. Nowadays transmission system
ANN operators calculate the thermal limits based on current weather conditions and line ampacity, dynamically in
real-time. Such techniques allow higher exploitation of existing OHL enabling safe and stable transmission of
electrical energy. In this paper, based on the weather parameters collected from an automated weather station
installed on a transmission tower, the conductor temperature is estimated using newly developed methods based
on artificial neural network (ANN) and regression analysis. Estimation results are compared with ones obtained
by existing CIGRE 601 and IEEE 738-2012 methodologies. Calculated temperatures are compared with measured
temperatures from Overhead Transmission Line Monitoring (OTLM) device. Both methodologies, regression
analysis and ANN are discussed, and their error of conductor temperature calculation is analyzed. DTR is
calculated based on the maximum allowable conductor temperature.

1. Introduction conductors stretch for kilometers through different types of terrains

Thermal rating of the overhead conductor is related to its cross-
section area. By adding and additional conductor per phase, the forces
on the existing transmission tower and suspension and jointing equip­
ment will be increased. Due to the sag increase, there will be decrease in
safety height which is prescribed in the regulations of every country.
From economic point of view, the installation of an addition conductor
per phase significantly increases costs because existing transmission
towers and suspension and jointing equipment needs to be replaced.
Construction of new transmission line with bundled conductors as well
represents a significant investment where, as in the previous example,
the investment return time is questionable. Because of that, accent is on
complete utilization of existing conductors in a way that conductor
thermal rating is estimated with weather parameters which are collected
from weather stations installed in transformer stations, transmission
towers or from companies that provide weather forecast [19,20]. Static
thermal rating presents conservative way of ampacity determination,
and it is constant through time and equal for all spans [3,4]. Since OHL
where altitude, wind direction, ambient temperature and solar radiation
change, dynamic determination of ampacity is needed [21–23]. Authors
in [4,18] discuss about various weather variables that have impact on a
photovoltaic energy forecasting using ANN and linear regression. In this
paper, based on the weather parameters, the conductor temperature is
estimated using methods based on ANN and multiple linear regression
analysis and then compared with the estimated temperature using
existing methodologies.
Dynamic thermal rating (DTR) systems are commonly used for sag,
tension, temperature, and current rating determination of OHLs [3]. In
this paper, temperature and DTR calculations for OHL are presented.
Operating temperature of OHL is monitored with OTLM device and
compared with the maximum design temperature of conductor. OTLM
device has two temperature sensors for surface temperature measuring
and current transformer for current measuring. The device is powered
by electromagnetic induction created by variable magnetic flux of
alternating current flowing through a conductor. An automated weather
station, installed on the same transmission tower there the OTLM device

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tomislav.sterc@hops.hr (T. Sterc).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2023.109192
Received 10 January 2023; Received in revised form 22 March 2023; Accepted 19 April 2023
Available online 4 May 2023
0142-0615/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
T. Sterc et al.
is located, measures the solar radiation, wind speed and direction,
ambient temperature, relative air humidity, barometric pressure and
precipitation. The measured data of conductor temperature and weather
parameters is sent wirelessly using 4G network and is saved on the
server. Automatic weather stations are also installed in the transformer
stations and can be used for conductor temperature estimation. DTR
calculation includes data of conductor temperature, current and weather
parameters. CIGRE TB 601 [1] and IEEE 738–2012 [2] are two meth­
odologies that are used for conductor temperature calculation and DTR
estimation.
2. Review of DTR methodologies and mathematical models for
ohl conductor temperature estimation
2.1. Methodology represented in CIGRE TB 601
Methodology is the updated and expanded version of the CIGRE TB
207 [6]. CIGRE TB 207 covers the thermal behavior of OHL conductors
at low current densities (<1.5 A mm− 2) and low temperatures (<100 ◦ C)
[1]. Methodology CIGRE TB 601 provides new skin effect calculations
using methodology CIGRE TB 345 [7]. The lay ratios for aluminum and
steel layers, which are used for calculation of increments due to
stranding are given in annex D of Standard EN 50182 [8]. The lay ratios
which are not included in annex D (e.g., conductor 362-AL1/59-ST1A)
can be calculated as a mean value using minimum and maximum lay
ratios from Table 1 of the same standard. Methodology CIGRE TB 601
provides calculations for transformer effect for conductors that have odd
numbers of aluminum layers (e.g., 382-AL1/49-ST1A, 449-AL1/39-
ST1A).
2.2. Methodology represented in IEEE 738–2012
Methodology provides information about the electrical resistance of
bare overhead stranded conductors at a frequency of 60 Hz, at tem­
peratures of 25 ◦ C to 75 ◦ C. The conductor resistance at any other
temperature, Tavg , is determined by linear interpolation. In some coun­
tries frequency is 50 Hz and conductor manufacturers give information
about DC conductor resistance at temperature 20 ◦ C. Therefore, it is
necessary to calculate AC conductor resistance at any other temperature
using methodology CIGRE TB 345 [7].
2.3. Mathematical models for OHL conductor temperature estimation in
steady state
According to CIGRE TB 601 and IEEE 738–2012, left part of the
equation represents heating contribution and right part represents
cooling contribution:
PJ + P S = P c + P r
where PJ represents Joule heating (W⋅m− 1 ), PS solar heating (W⋅m− 1 ), Pc
convective cooling (W⋅m− 1 ) and Pr radiative cooling (W⋅m− 1 ). Other
heating contributions on the left and cooling contributions on the right
side are neglected according to CIGRE/IEEE methodologies.
Joule heating contribution is calculated by:
PJ = I 2 R = I 2 [R20 (1 + α(Tav − 20) ) ],
Table 1
Summary statistics of the regression model results.
Number of observations 10,081
Error degrees of freedom 10,075
Root Mean Squared Error 1.73 ◦ C
R-squared 0.917
Adjusted R-Squared 0.916
F-statistic vs. constant model 2.21E + 04
p-value 0
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192
where I is the root-mean-square (RMS) value of AC current flowing
through conductor (A), R20 is the conductor AC resistance at 20 ◦ C
(Ω⋅m− 1 ), α is the temperature coefficient of resistance (K− 1 ), Tav is
average temperature of aluminum strand layers (◦ C). Catalogue value of
conductor DC resistance represents maximum aluminum resistance after
stranding at certain temperature, most often 20 ◦ C. Conductor AC
resistance can be calculated by multiplying conductor DC resistance
with skin effect factor. Skin effect factor can be calculated for example
with Bessel functions [1]. Solar heating contribution is calculated by:
PS = αS IT D (3)
where αS is the absorptivity coefficient of conductor surface (dimen­
sionless), IT is the global radiation intensity (W⋅m− 2 ), D is the outer
diameter of the conductor (m). Convective cooling contribution is
defined by Newton law, and it is calculated by:
Pc = πDhc (Ts − Ta ) (4)
where D is the outer diameter of the conductor (m), hc is the convective
heat transfer coefficient (W⋅K− 1 ⋅m− 2 ), Ts is conductor surface tempera­
ture (◦ C), Ta is air temperature (◦ C). Radiative cooling contribution is
defined by Stefan-Boltzmann law and it is calculated by:
[ ]
Pr = πDσε (Ts + 273)4 − (Ta + 273)4 (5)
where D is the outer diameter of the conductor (m), σ is the Stefan-
Boltzmann constant (W⋅K− 4 ⋅m− 2 ), ε is the emissivity of the conductor
surface, Ts is conductor surface temperature (℃), Ta is air temperature
(℃). Combining all above formulas into one, power balance equation
can be written as:
[ ]
I 2 [R20 (1+ α(Tav − 20))]+PS = πDhc (Ts − Ta )+ π Dσε (Ts +273)4 − (Ta +273)4
(6)
To simplify equation, it can be assumed that conductor temperature is
equal in every point of the conductor’s cross-section. That assumption is
valid for homogenous conductors or nonhomogeneous conductors
which have small cross section. Instead of using average temperature of
aluminum strand layers Tav , conductor surface temperature Ts can be
used.
3. Comparison of measured and calculated conductor
temperatures
An example for conductor temperature calculation based on existing
methodologies is given for the 220 kV transmission OHL with 362-AL1/
59-ST1A type of conductor, owned by Croatian Transmission System
Operator Plc. The transmission OHL is 55.2 km long and it has a static
(1) thermal rating of 300 MVA. Permissible conductor temperature is 80℃.
The number of transmission towers is 191 with average distance be­
tween towers of 287.5 m. Fig. 1 shows the altitude profile of the OHL.
The temperature calculation is an iterative process and it needs to be
solved with methods for numerical integration, like Forward Euler or
Runge-Kutta method. For temperature calculation of conductor, Runge-
Kutta fourth-order method is used.
Slopes k1 to k4 needed for conductor temperature calculation can be
(2)
expressed as [9]:
1 [ 2 ( i− 1 ) ( ) ( )]
k1 = I R Tc + Ps − Pc Tc i− 1 − Pr Tc i− 1 (7)
mcp
1 [ 2 ( i− 1 ) ( ) (
k2 = I R Tc + 0.5k1 h + Ps − Pc Tc i− 1 + 0.5k1 h − Pr Tc i− 1
mcp
)]
+ 0.5k1 h
2
T. Sterc et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192

Fig. 1. The altitude profile of the transmission OHL.

1 [ 2 ( i− 1 ) ( ) (
k3 = I R Tc + 0.5k2 h + Ps − Pc Tc i− 1 + 0.5k2 h − Pr Tc i− 1
mcp
)]
+ 0.5k2 h

1 [ 2 ( i− 1 ) ( ) ( )]
k4 = I R Tc + k3 h + Ps − Pc Tc i− 1 + k3 h − Pr Tc i− 1 + k3 h
mcp

where m is a conductor mass per unit length, cp is the total specific heat
capacity which represents the sum of steel and aluminum part, Tav is
average conductor temperature, t is time.
The conductor temperature can be expressed as [9]:
h
Tc i = Tc i− 1 + (k1 + 2k2 + 2k3 + k4 ). (8)
6
The initial value for the conductor temperature which is needed for
calculation is used from the OTLM device which is installed on the OHL
conductor. MeteoHOPS application was used as the weather data pro­
vider. Measured data is sent wirelessly using a 4G connection and saved
on the server. Wide Area Monitoring System (WAMS) was used for in­
formation about AC current through conductor. Fig. 2 shows a flowchart
that describes the temperature calculation of the OHL conductor ac­
cording to existing methodologies.
Fig. 3 shows the position of the OTLM device and the automated
weather station on the same OHL tower. The vertical distance between
the OTLM and weather station is 8 m. Weather data like solar radiation,
wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, relative air humidity
and barometric pressure are collected from the automated weather
station.
Input data is based on 7 days’ period. Step size used for numerical
integration with Runge-Kutta fourth-order method is 1 min. Fig. 4 shows
measured values of solar radiation and current and Fig. 5 shows Fig. 2. Conductor temperature calculation flowchart according to existing
measured values of wind speed and ambient temperature. Fig. 6 shows methodologies.
measured value of wind attack angle and Fig. 7 shows difference be­
tween the measured temperature and the calculated temperature using 4. Calculation of thermal rating according to CIGRE/IEEE
the CIGRE TB 601 and the IEEE 738–2012 methodology. Calculated methodologies
temperatures differ from measurements particularly in the time periods
with low wind speeds. Temperature errors obtained from CIGRE TB 601 An example of the maximum current sustainable in steady state
methodology are in the interval (-9.6929℃, 11.7852℃) and the ones conditions where meteorological parameters remain constant at the
from IEEE 738–2012 methodology are in the interval (-9.2209℃, present values is given for the same OHL. Conductor DTR calculation is
11.9883℃). As reported in [10], due to accuracy problems of presented not iterative process like temperature calculation. Both methodologies
methodologies at low wind speeds, estimated temperature can be even give similar results and can be considered equivalent [14–18]. Fig. 8
20 ◦ C higher than the measured one. shows calculated DTR. An average value of calculated DTR for both
methodologies is 87 % higher than the static thermal rating. Current
measurement transformers are the elements that can limit the calculated

3
T. Sterc et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192

DTR because of its rated current. In this case, the calculated DTR can be
68 % higher than the static thermal rating. One of the limiting factors for
practical application of DTR is the age of OHL and the state of suspension
and jointing equipment. Because of the inaccuracy of all input param­
eters and mathematical models, real DTR should be less than calculated
one to be on the “safe side”.

5. Regression model of conductor temperature

In regression analysis, the conductor temperature is a response var­

iable. It depends on the current flowing through the conductor, solar
radiation, ambient temperature, wind speed and its angle attack, which
are explanatory variables. Fig. 9 shows the measured conductor tem­
perature and temperature estimated by multiple linear regression model
for the previously mentioned time period.
Multiple linear regression equation for the given sample of measured
data is:
Tc = 3.279 + 0.013I + 0.001IT + 1.006Ta − 1.057V − 0.024φ + ε (9)

where I is root-mean-square (RMS) value of AC current flowing through

conductor (A), IT is global radiation intensity (W⋅m− 2 ), Ta is ambient
temperature (◦ C), V is wind speed (m⋅s− 1 ), φ is attack angle (◦ ) and ε is
residual (error). As the wind speed and attack angle increase, the
Fig. 3. Position of OTLM device and weather station at transmission tower. conductor temperature decreases. Factors that influence the most are

Fig. 4. Measured values of solar radiation and current.

Fig. 5. Measured values of wind speed and ambient temperature.

4
T. Sterc et al.
Fig. 6. Measured value of wind attack angle.
Fig. 7. Comparison between calculated and measured temperatures.
wind speed, ambient temperature, and attack angle. Summary statistics
of the regression model results is given in table below.
It can be seen from Table 1 that Root Mean Squared Error value is
1.73℃ which is average model prediction error. R-squared value is
0.917 which means that the regression model explains 91.7% of the
variation in the response variable around its mean. F-statistic vs. con­
stant model value is 2.21E + 04 and it is greater than the critical value,
which means that there is statistic evidence for rejecting null hypothesis
that all coefficients are equal to zero. Lasso regression also can be used,
or multiple linear regression predictor coefficients can be compared to
Lasso regression predictor coefficients with corresponding tuning
parameter λ. Lasso regression helps with problems of multicollinearity
with autocorrelation which multiple linear regression has and it helps to
control multiple linear regression predictor coefficients [11]. Two Stage
Ridge Regression Method can also be used instead of multiple linear
regression [12].
6. Artificial neural network model of conductor temperature
An ANN model is implemented in Matlab R2022b for the same time
period as in all previous cases [5]. Training set of data (50 %) is used for
training the model, the validation set of data (20 %) is used to optimize
the hyper parameters of the model and the testing set of data (30 %) is
5
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192
used to evaluation of the model. Optimal number of neurons in the
hidden layer is 67 and it is based on minimum value of the RMSE of the
validation set of data [18]. For the number of neurons in the hidden
layer lower than 67, model is under fitted because the RMSE is high both
for the training set and validation set. Model cannot properly interpolate
the relationship between the input and the output. For the number of
neurons in the hidden layer higher than 67, model is over fitted because
RMSE of validation set starts to increase. For the optimal number of
neurons in the hidden layer RMSE value for the training set of data is
0.8318℃, for the validation set of data is 0.9465℃ and for the testing set
of data is 0.9062℃. Fig. 10 shows RMSE curves of the training set and
the validation set as a function of the number of neurons in the hidden
layer.
Fig. 11 shows artificial neural network model of conductor
temperature.
Fig. 12 shows the predicted output by the ANN model. Predicted
output is compared with true output which is the conductor temperature
measured with the OTLM device.
Fig. 13 shows the measured conductor temperature and temperature
estimated by the ANN model. It can be seen that the ANN model has
smaller oscillations around the measured temperature regarding multi­
ple linear regression model [24–26]. Time period for temperature esti­
mation depends on forecasted weather parameters and current through
T. Sterc et al.
Fig. 8. Calculated DTR for period of 1 day.
Fig. 9. Comparison between measured and calculated temperature.
OHL (for example day ahead load-flow analysis and meteorological
forecast). In our case predicted time period is equal to 3024 min which
represents 30% of total amount of data (7 days or 10,080 min).
7. Comparison of conductor temperature error distributions
A two-sample F-test is used to determine whether or not two data set
variances are equal. In this paper, one-tailed F-test is presented with
equal sample sizes [13]. Value for test statistic F is calculated by:
s21
F= (10)
s22
where s21 is the variance of first sample and s22 is the variance of second
sample. A two-sample F-test at significance level α = 0.05 is performed
with following hypotheses: H0 - variance of first sample is equal to
6
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192
variance of second sample; Ha - variance of first sample is less than
variance of second sample. Table of F-values for regression model
regarding both methodologies is given in Tables 2–5.
It can be seen that in all cases the test statistic F-value is less than F-
critical value and alternate hypotheses can be accepted at 95% signifi­
cance. ANN model variance is less than other model variances. This
means that ANN model output spreads less from the average value
compared to other methods. A two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
can be used to compare a sample with a reference probability distribu­
tion. Cumulative distribution function of conductor temperature error
from both methodologies, multiple linear regression and ANN model is
compared with cumulative distribution function of standard normal
distribution with parameters μ = 0 and σ = 1. As shown in Table 5 and
in Figs. 14–17, the cumulative distribution function of the ANN model
has the smallest deviation and because of that it is the best for OHL
temperature estimation.
T. Sterc et al.
Fig. 10. Grid search for optimal number of neurons in the hidden layer.
Fig. 11. Architecture of ANN model for conductor temperature estimation.
8. Artificial neural network model applied to a larger set of
input data
In previous example, 7 day’s period is used. Larger set (longer time
period) of input data is required to cover all possible situations in
practice regarding variations and limits of input parameters. Set of data
used for this simulation is 8136 which represents 10-minute measure­
ments of meteorological parameters and current from 01st of January
2022 to 22nd of July 2022. Training set of data (80 % or 6508 min) is
used for training the model, the validation set of data (10 % or 814 min)
is used to optimize the hyper parameters of the model and the testing set
of data (10 % or 814 min) is used to evaluation of the model. Optimal
number of neurons in the hidden layer is 66 and it is based on minimum
value of the RMSE of the validation set of data. For the optimal number
of neurons in the hidden layer RMSE value for the training set of data is
7
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192
2.1172℃, for the validation set of data is 2.3280℃ and for the testing set
of data is 2.1665℃. Fig. 18 shows RMSE curves of the training set and
the validation set as a function of the number of neurons in the hidden
layer. Fig. 19 shows the comparison between measured temperature and
ANN model.
Fig. 20 shows the temperature difference between measured and
calculated temperature. Temperature oscillations around 0℃ can be
reduced when ANN dataset is increased. In this case predicted time
period is equal to 814 min which represents 10% of total amount of data
(7 months or 8136 min).
Table 6 shows the intervals of input parameters for the period of 7
months. With larger period of time intervals of input parameters will
also be larger. That leads to more accurate conductor temperature
estimation.
9. Discussion
Temperature calculation of OHL is often complex because the spans
are located in different areas with different meteorological conditions.
Because of that, the conductor resistance for each span is not equal.
Existing methodologies for conductor temperature calculation are based
on heat balance equation. Multiple linear regression is a statistical tool
that uses explanatory variables to predict the outcome of a response
variable. ANN is learning by processing data with known input and
output and form weighting factors that are stored in the network. Best
architecture of the artificial neural network model is when the minimum
value of the Root Mean Squared Error of the validation data set is
minimum. That means that the model is not over fitted or under fitted.
All above methods are tested for the same time period and compared
with each other. It is shown on 7 days period and verified on 7 months
period that ANN model gives the smallest variance (temperature dif­
ference) and because of that it is the best tool for conductor temperature
estimation. Presented method for estimation of conductor temperature
is tasted based on data from OTLM and weather station located at the
same tower. The same approach can be applied not only to one point of
OHL, but over the complete OHL route (considering different critical
line sags or temperature hot-spots) to determine an overall DTR limit of
OHL. For this, LIDAR technology should be used for spans and meteo­
rological parameters along the OHL route from weather stations. In the
case of missing data, some of the numerical weather forecast models’
outputs (e.g., Weather Research & Forecasting model, WRF) can be used
as a reliable source of weather data combined with satellite data in
combination with ERA5 reanalysis model provided by ECMWF (Euro­
pean Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast) as a part of
T. Sterc et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192

Fig. 12. Difference between perfect and predicted model of conductor temperature for testing set of data.

Fig. 13. Comparison between measured and calculated temperature.

Table 2 Table 4
Comparison between ANN model and CIGRE TB 601 methodology. Comparison between ANN model and regression model.
Number of observations sample 1 10,081 Number of observations sample 1 10,081
Number of observations sample 2 10,081 Number of observations sample 2 10,081
Standard deviation sample 1 0.9990 ◦ C Standard deviation sample 1 0.9990 ◦ C
Standard deviation sample 2 3.9361 ◦ C Standard deviation sample 2 1.7326 ◦ C
Level of significance 0.05 Level of significance 0.05
Tail Left tailed Tail Left tailed
Test statistic F 0.0644 Test statistic F 0.3325
F-critical value(s) 0.9678 F-critical value(s) 0.9678
p-value 0 p-value 0

Table 3 Table 5
Comparison between ANN model and IEEE 738–2012 methodology. Test statistic from cumulative distribution functions.
Number of observations sample 1 10,081 Test statistic for ANN 0.0716
Number of observations sample 2 10,081 Test statistic for multiple linear regression 0.1252
Standard deviation sample 1 0.9990 ◦ C Test statistic for CIGRE TB 601 methodology 0.4872
Standard deviation sample 2 3.9797 ◦ C Test statistic for IEEE 738–2012 methodology 0.5007
Level of significance 0.05
Tail Left tailed
Test statistic F 0.063 Copernicus Program. This approach was investigated earlier, and satis­
F-critical value(s) 0.9678
factory results were obtained. Reference is added covering this issue.
p-value 0
Day ahead estimated OHL temperature helps to determine the time

8
T. Sterc et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192

Fig. 14. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for OHL temperature error calculated with ANN model.

Fig. 15. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for OHL temperature error calculated with Fig. 17. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for OHL temperature error calculated with
multiple linear regression. IEEE 738–2012 methodology.

10. Conclusion

This paper deals with the comparison between OHL temperature

estimation presented in CIGRE TB 601, IEEE 738–2012 methodologies,
regression analysis and the ANN model of the OHL. Both methodologies,
the regression model and the ANN model are discussed and simulated
for the same data set collected from the OTLM device and the automated
weather station. A two-sample F-test was applied to OHL temperature
error data for both methodologies, the regression model and the ANN
model. It is shown that based on the sample of the data set, ANN model
variance is less then both methodologies variances and multiple linear
regression variance. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to the OHL
temperature error distribution. It is shown that the cumulative distri­
bution function of the ANN model error has the smallest deviation
regarding cumulative distribution function of the standard normal
Fig. 16. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for OHL temperature error calculated with
distribution.
CIGRE TB 601 methodology.

Declaration of Competing Interest

period in which design temperature (critical sag) of the OHL will be
reached when some other OHL trips out from the power system (N-1 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
analysis). It could be also used to estimate the OHL resistance for day interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
ahead power losses prediction and network topology planning of the work reported in this paper.
transmission network, considering available meteorological conditions
and weather forecasting. Future work will also include Particle Swarm Data availability
Optimization (PSO) and Support Vector Regression (SVR) methods for
ANN training, which would lead to smaller RMSE values. Data will be made available on request.

9
T. Sterc et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192

Fig. 18. Grid search for optimal number of neurons in the hidden layer.

Fig. 19. Comparison between measured and calculated temperature.

Fig. 20. Temperature difference between measured and calculated temperature.

10
T. Sterc et al.
Table 6
Intervals of input parameters used for simulation.
Wind direction [0, 360] ◦
Wind speed [0, 13.7] m/s
Ambient temperature [− 4.1, 37.3] ℃
Solar radiation [0, 1260] W/m2
Conductor temperature [0.7, 50] ℃
Current [34, 892] A
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 innovation action programme under
Grant Agreement No 864274 (project FARCROSS). The sole re­
sponsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It
does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Innovation and Networks
Executive Agency (INEA) or the European Commission (EC). INEA or the
EC are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information
contained therein.
The project is co-financed by the European Union from the European
Regional Development Fund (European Union), grant number
KK.01.2.1.02.0117, with the project title “Advanced power system
management in conditions of uncertainty arising from climate changes”.
References
[1] “Guide for Thermal Rating Calculations of Overhead Lines”, CIGRE, Technical
brochure No. 601; Dec. 2014.
[2] “IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current-Temperature Relationship of Bare
Overhead Conductors”, IEEE, Std 738-2012; Dec. 2013.
[3] Heckenbergerova J, Musilek P, Filimonenkov K. Assessment of seasonal static
thermal ratings of overhead transmission conductors. In: 2011 IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting; 2011.
[4] Douglass DA, et al. A Review of Dynamic Thermal Line Rating Methods with
Forecasting. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 2019;34(6):2100–9.
[5] AlShafeey M, Csáki C. Evaluating neural network and linear regression
photovoltaic power forecasting models based on different input methods. Energy
Rep 2021;7:7601–14.
[6] “Thermal behaviour of overhead conductors”, Technical Brochure No. 207; 2002.
[7] “Alternating Current (AC) Resistance of Helically Stranded Conductors”, Technical
Brochure No. 345; 2008.
11
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 151 (2023) 109192
[8] Standard EN 50182, Conductors for overhead lines - Round wire concentric lay
stranded conductors, European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization;
2001.
[9] Chen X, Hu R, Hong Y, Ying Z. A Study for Improving Accuracy of Overhead
Conductor Temperature Model under Large Discrete Steps. In: 3rd International
Conference on Electrical, Automation and Mechanical Engineering (EAME 2018); 2018.
[10] Arroyo A, Castro P, Martinez R, Manana M, Madrazo A, Lecuna R, et al.
Comparison between IEEE and CIGRE Thermal Behaviour Standards and Measured
Temperature on a 132-kV Overhead Power Line. Energies 2015;8(12):13660–71.
[11] Wang H, Li G, Tsai C. Regression Coefficient and Autoregressive Order Shrinkage
and Selection Via the Lasso. J Roy Statist Soc Ser B (Statist Methodol) 2007;69(1):
63–78.
[12] Eledum H, Awadallah HH. A Monte Carlo Study for Dealing with Multicollinearity
and Autocorrelation Problems in Linear Regression Using Two Stage Ridge
Regression Method. Math Statist 2021;9(5):630–8.
[13] Donaldson TS. Power of the F-Test for Normal Distributions and Unequal Error
Variances. Defense Technical Information Centre; 1966.
[14] Hajeforosh S, Bollen MHJ. Uncertainty analysis of stochastic dynamic line rating.
Electr Pow Syst Res 2021;194.
[15] Jupe SCE, Kadar D, Murphy G, Bartlett MG, Jackson KT. Application of a Dynamic
Thermal Rating System to a 132kV Distribution Network. In: 2011 2nd IEEE PES
International Conference and Exhibition on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies; 2011.
[16] Kanálik M, Margitová A, Beňa Ľ. Temperature calculation of overhead power line
conductors based on CIGRE Technical Brochure 601 in Slovakia. Electr Eng 2019;
101:921–33.
[17] Rahman M, Atchinson F, Cecchi V. Grid Integration of Renewable Energy Sources:
Utilization of Line Thermal Behavior. In: 2019 SoutheastCon; 2019.
[18] Alberdi R, Fernandez E, Albizu I, Bedialauneta MT, Fernandez R. Overhead line
ampacity forecasting and a methodology for assessing risk and line capacity
utilization. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2021;133.
[19] Gómez AM, Morozovska K, Laneryd T, Hilber P. Optimal sizing of the wind farm
and wind farm transformer using MILP and dynamic transformer rating. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2022;136.
[20] Rocha ODA, Morozovska K, Laneryd T, Ivarsson O, Ahlrot C, Hilber P. Dynamic
rating assists cost-effective expansion of wind farms by utilizing the hidden
capacity of transformers. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2020;123.
[21] Teh J, Cotton I. Critical span identification model for dynamic thermal rating
system placement. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2015;9:2644–52.
[22] Teh J, Cotton I. Risk informed design modification of dynamic thermal rating
system. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2015;9:2697–704.
[23] Lawal OA, Teh J. Assessment of dynamic line rating forecasting methods. Electr
Pow Syst Res 2023;214.
[24] Racz L, Nemeth B, Gocsei G, Zarchev D, Mladenov V. Performance Analysis of a
Dynamic Line Rating System Based on Project Experiences. Energies 2022;15(3).
[25] Racz L, Nemeth B. A novel concept of dynamic line rating systems based on soft
computing models. 10th IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid; 2022.
[26] Racz L, Nemeth B. Investigation of dynamic electricity line rating based on neural
networks. Energetika 2018;64(2).